Template talk:AlsoWP
Wikipedia "might" have an article Th statement that wikipedia "may" have an article on a subject does not reflect well on us. What it telegraphs is that we couldn't be bothered to click the link ourselves. Wikipedia style guide comes down hard on such usage, admonishing contributors to Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. If the contributor doesn't know that the WP article exists, the template should not be used. The prior text of this template stated: :"Examples include U.S. counties that are also cities, where the "People from" category is only for the city but our standard templates are on county pages." It is unclear why this rationale supports making vague statements to our visitors on easily verifiable points of fact. Regarding use of names, familypedia place names MUST conform to WP names. London is both a county and a city. The 2nd level administrative entity has the WP article wikipedia:Greater London. The article that describes the locality is [wikipedia:London. The place described by wikipedia:City of London may be encoded in property "places-other". All of these places may be encoded in concepts: Concept:People from Greater London, Concept:People from London, and Concept:People from City of London. 20:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC) :The idea that we couldn't be bothered to click the link ourselves is only one of the alternatives that could be telegraphed by the "may". Another is the much more positive practical idea that any outside wiki to which we link could delete the target page within an instant of our last check and that we are therefore being commendably cautious; only a minority of our readers are likely to receive any telegraphy from the expression except the plain one that there could be useful information on Wikipedia if they want to look there. :Clearly a better expression is needed while still avoiding what the version I reverted did, which was making several dozen or hundred pages say something untrue (a much worse crime, guaranteed to put off some new readers). To be accurate while trying not to give the impression that we haven't looked at the link lately if ever, I think we will need a few more words. Something along the lines of "There may be more detail about this at Wikipedia but it is likely to be of less genealogical interest; start a search at ......" :Or maybe we need a separate template (with wording a bit like that, definitely giving a search link because of the likely alternative name forms) for the hndis pages and possibly a different one again for the county category templates such as b-us (where we are fairly confident that there will be a WP page of that name, because it seems to be standard, but we can't be certain). :Instituting one or both of those could let AlsoWP revert to a plain "has", with a guideline urging that any page on which it is introduced should be saved only after the person using it has checked WP. Maybe our templated versions can have a clever subroutine that immediately flashes if WP does not have an article of the stated name. :— Robin Patterson (Talk) 13:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC) ::Ah. Rather than verify the 100 or so links and make a definitive statement about something easily verifiable we take the low road and resort to weasel language? Look, I have no problem with a template that is a search aid- like generates a search on google or on wikipedia content. But this would be a searchWP template. AlsoWP is a citation template. The core justifications seem to be: *it is too much trouble to correct the hundred or so articles that are incorrectly marked with AlsoWP *Wikipedia can change, so in order to avoid dead links we should use indeterminant language with this citation, (and presumably by extension all citations. This solution to dead links would come as a shock to writers of authoritative references. Nowhere will you see this strategy enumerated in wikipedia's wikipedia's guidlines on dead links. Obviously we have a difference of opinion on the concept of weasel language. However you phrase it, you advocate shying away from making a definitive statement about something which is immediately verifiable. Really, this is completely unacceptable in authoritative references. If AlsoWP retains this wording, it's use should be deprecated in favor of . 16:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC) Place names Little relevance to the current discussion, because the "may" was instituted for reasons unrelated to the question of whether our place name is the same as what Wikipedia's place name is or should be. The example quoted above was about one situation in which we might need a pipe, which is potentially common with person names but fortunately rare with place names; but as it is about a category which Wikipedia does not treat the same way, I see little direct relevance even for places. It's not unlike the sort of category name difference in our "Born in ..." for WP's "... births". Of course the statement that FP place names MUST conform to WP names will be news to most users of this wiki. Although such correspondence of names is something some of us have suggested as a good idea for practical reasons, its linking with the word "MUST" is fairly new and had not yet been acknowledged in writing by more than a handful of contributors last time I looked at relevant pages. And I hope Phlox is not proposing to revert to Wikipedia's "People from" phraseology after the vigorous way in which he fought against it a while ago. — Robin Patterson (Talk) 13:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC) :If you wish to dispute the use of WP names, then this is completely off topic. We have had a long discussion about place names and idealistic structures. I understand your sarcasm "will be news to most users". Practically speaking, If you think that FP has the manpower to name and police what is well over a quarter million place names, then please go right ahead on this course of discussion. I will say this- I refuse to write any cross reference database between invented FP terms for places and names that already exist for the place in WP. There will be a WP name for the place in FP, and that is what the facts templates will support. We must take a hard line on uniform use of place names. If everyone do not use the same name for a place, then our referencing is doomed. 16:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC) ::I agree with Phlox on this one. rtol 18:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC) :::So do I (apart from calling fact "sarcasm"). At least that's three of us in agreement. I hope we can persuade at least a couple of other top users. — Robin Patterson (Talk) 12:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC) Lot's of things are unknown and of no interest to top users. Being bold means just that. I have stated this position in forum articles on the subject. You do not oppose, so what's the point of this discussion? 17:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC) wpbio We also need to do something about that is standard on a lot of person pages but in fact lead to nowhere. rtol 18:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC) :Yes, it seems to have suffered some improper use. I haven't checked all of its history to see whether there was proper guidance right from the start. I did note that Phlox improved it over 21 months ago, bringing in the correct link to the info parameter, and leaving the template saying, among other things, "Wikipedia may have more biographically information on this person." Weasel words? — Robin Patterson (Talk) 12:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC) ::Also off topic. If that is an error (and it appears to be), then it should be discussed there. 17:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC) Proposed reversion to original definitve language I propose restoring the language of AlsoWP to the original definitive language (that which I restored), and the unconfirmed uses of it to be deleted- eg. Running a bot to delete all those in the hndis articles. 17:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC) :Fair enough to restore the "has" (in view of your strongly expressed distaste for weasel words). But not to delete the uses where it might sometimes then be incorrect: they deserve reviewing so as to get an alternative of a search for useful info in WP. You have no problem with a template that generates a search on wikipedia content. I'll work on that and discuss it at hndis initially. — Robin Patterson (Talk) 06:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC) ::That is gracious of you. Thank you. I agree research aids are great and we should have a rich set of them. WP and Commons users are accustomed to this logo and text as being a "See Also link", so I do feel strongly that there really should be something at the destination of the link. Maybe for that reason the search links should have a unique look so that users identify them as a research tool, not a reference citation. 08:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)